Monday, December 28, 2009

The US Embassy in Nigeria was informed about 6 months ago of the danger of the Northwest attempted bomber, but took no steps to prevent what happened. The man's intentions were told to US officials in Nigeria by his father, a wealthy banker.

Rather than wait, a no-doubt infuriated Obama stalked into the room in question and demanded, "Are you ready to see me, Premier Wen?" No word on Wen's reaction, though he did submit to a discussion on the spot that evidently sealed the release of the immortal and glorious Copenhagen Quasi-Agreement on Climate Change.

So with Barack Obama, we've reached the point where the leader of record of the most powerful state in history has become a man you can casually stand up....

Then there's the deep aura of unseriousness that Obama has generated around himself. Though essentially incalculable, this factor is undeniable and will grow in importance and impact as time passes.

But there's one event in particular that very likely played a part -- the fact that, only a few weeks before, Obama publicly and notoriously bowed to the emperor of Japan.

Japan and China have a lengthy history, very little of which can be termed benign. They have always been rivals, often acting at cross purposes and usually at sword's point. But the past century of Sino-Japanese relations has been little short of horrendous....

Which only goes to underline the reason why diplomatic protocol exists in the first place -- to exclude through ritual actions all possibilities that error, misunderstanding, or personal pique might interfere with matters of state. Obama has yet to learn this. His insistence on winging it, on reinventing established practice on his own terms, is potentially

"The way this deal was concocted and announced was perhaps the logical conclusion of a news culture wherein it is

more important to beam a speaking president live into peoples' homes from the other side of the world

than it is

to evaluate what has happened and give a balanced account.

The Obama White House mounted a surgical strike of astounding effectiveness (and astounding cynicism) that saw the president announcing a deal live on TV before anyone - even most of the governments involved in the talks - knew a deal had been done.

The news went first to the White House lobby journalists travelling with the president.

Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the way Obama wants, we will have something

very much like the British system. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition,

they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer.

In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises....

Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.

JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?

NH:Oh, much worse.Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were led astray. However,

Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor" (or instructor) "at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution.

In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of everything we do on the phone and on the internet. Obama has done nothing about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it.

When they have somebody like Obama whom they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course, that is a large part of the reason for

their silence on these issues.

They are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change. Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."

JW:Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?

NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them.

Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not doing it and

A woman in the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101 years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation.

This is a man who is causing us and will cause us a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has scared me in terms of my lifespan.

JW:But he is praised for his charisma and

great smile. He can make people believe things just by his personality.

NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him and may have had some doubts....

JW:One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among African-Americans.

NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual, the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable.

JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?

NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is what is happening with the Tea Parties. I wrote a column called "The Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country.

A lot of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they are Americans,

why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.

JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is basically dead.

NH:I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?"

Well, it is not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.

We hear talk now about reforming public education. There are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic illiteracy in the country.

JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.

NH:A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment. I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe these are bright students.

JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.

NH: That is a stunner....

JW: You don't sound very optimistic.

NH:If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize the country.

They do not focus enough on the fact that the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on.... There are enough people who are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And we need to encourage others to become involved."

The UN has stoked hysteria and hatred against the US using 'climate' as a fake weapon. This man (quoted above) had reason to believe he was entitled to enslave American taxpayers and their children. Since American people have no leadership to defend us, no UN of our own, we must protect ourselves by having the UN move its quarters elsewhere.

His face always gives him away. getty photo, last day of snowy Copenhagen. (12/27, Now knowing how humiliated he was, this face makes even more sense).

If they had looked at this multimillionaire's behavior toward his own relatives living in squalor in the slums of Boston and huts in Africa, they would have known he'd leave anybody in the lurch in 2 seconds flat.

On the other hand, who or what lead these unelected elitists to believe they could harness and enslave US citizens and their children indefinitely?

Did they think this man risked his young life in World War II to allow this country to be enslaved by psychopath billionaire back room crooks like Maurice Strong and George Soros?

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the

Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has itwrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If eitherappearsI will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.CheersPhil

So you'll help us out by taking the whole thing over including the US. Look, take all your dirty money made from scams like stealing food from Iraqi children via the UN Oil for Food scandal and butt out.

Please note: Conservation, care of our environment and its scarce resources are common sense. These matters are in no way related to islands in the Pacific whose geography is changing over time. Land movements have always existed,

Last week, as an official inquiry by the former civil servant Sir Muir Russell began, I tried to assess Warmergate’s wider significance.

The CRU’s supporters insisted it was limited. ‘In the long term, it will make very little difference to the scientific consensus, and to the way politicians respond to it,’ Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice Chancellor and a former CRU director, told me.

‘I am certain that the science is rock solid.’

He admitted that his CRU colleagues had sometimes used ‘injudicious phrases’, but that was because they kept on being ‘diverted’ from their work by those who wished to scrutinise it. ‘It’s understandable that sometimes people get frustrated,’ he said.

The only lesson the affair had for him was that ‘we have got to get better in terms of explanation. Some scientists still find it quite it difficult to communicate with the public.’

Others, however, were less optimistic

Roger Pielke, Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, could in no sense be described as a climate change sceptic, let alone a ‘denier’.

‘Human-caused climate change is real, and I’m a strong advocate for action,’ he said. ‘But I’m also a strong advocate for integrity in science.’

Pielke’s verdict on the scandal is damning.

‘These emails open up the possibility that big scientific questions we’ve regarded as settled may need another look.

'They reveal that some of these scientists saw themselves not as neutral investigators

‘They have lost a lot of credibility and as far as their being leading spokespeople on this issue of huge public importance,

there is no going back.’

Climate science is complicated, and often the only way to make sense of raw data is through sophisticated statistical computer programs.

The consequence is that most lay individuals - politicians and members of the public alike - have little choice but to take the assurances of scientists such as Davies on trust.

He and other ‘global warmists’ often insist that when it comes to the IPCC’s main conclusions - that the Earth is in a period of potentially catastrophic warming and that the main culprit is man-made greenhouse gas emission - no serious scientist dissents from the conventional view.

Hence, perhaps, Gordon Brown’s recent comment that those who disagree are

‘behind-the-times, antiscience, flat-Earth climate sceptics’.

In fact, there is a large body of highly-respected academic experts who fiercely contest this thesis: people such as Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a disillusioned former IPCC member, and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of geology at Oslo University, who has stated that ‘most leading geologists throughout the world know that

the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible’.

These dissenters focus their criticisms on the IPCC’s analysis of the way the atmosphere works and the models it uses to predict the future.

However, Warmergate strikes at something more fundamental - the science that justifies the basic assumption that the present warming really is unprecedented, at least in the past few thousand years.

Take the now-notorious email that the CRU’s currently suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, sent to his IPCC colleagues on November 16, 1999, when he wrote he had

‘just completed Mike’s Nature trick’ and had so managed to ‘hide the decline’.

The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified,

because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’.

Davies told me that the email had been ‘taken out of context’ adding: ‘One definition of the word “trick” is “the best way of doing something”. What Phil did was standard practice and the facts are out there in the peer-reviewed literature.’

the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century.

For example, some suggest that the ‘medieval warm period’, the 350-year era that started around 1000, when red wine grapes flourished in southern England and the Vikings tilled now-frozen farms in Greenland, was considerably warmer than even 1998.

Of course, this is inconvenient to climate change believers because there were

no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD - yet the Earth still warmed.

In September 1999, Jones’s IPCC colleague Michael Mann of Penn State University in America - who is now also the subject of an official investigation --was working with Jones on the hockey stick. As they debated which data to use, they discussed a long

tree-ring analysis carried out by Keith Briffa.

Briffa knew exactly why they wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’

Another British scientist - Chris Folland of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre - wrote the same day that using Briffa’s data might be awkward,

because it suggested the past was too warm.

This, he lamented, ‘dilutes the message rather significantly’.

***Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram,

On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

By 2007, when the IPCC produced its fourth report, McIntyre had become aware of the manipulation of the Briffa data and Briffa himself, as shown at the start of this article, continued to have serious qualms.

caving in to direct pressure from a climate change activist, Jo Abbess.

‘Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics who continually promote the idea that “global warming finished in 1998” when that is so patently not true,’ she told him in an email.

After a brief exchange, he complied and sent a final note: ‘Have a look in ten minutes and

But in the wake of Warmergate, such threats - and the readiness to bow to them - may become rarer.

‘A year ago, if a reporter called me, all I got was questions about why I’m trying to deny climate change and am threatening the future of the planet,’ said Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University near Toronto, a long-time collaborator with McIntyre.

‘Now, I’m getting questions about how they did the hockey stick and the problems with the data.

They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible.

A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation.

‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’

The Kremlin’s top climate change official, Alexander Bedritsky, denied the Russian government was involved in breaking into the CRU’s computer system.

‘You can post information on a computer from any other country. It is nonsense to blame Russia,’ he said."

...Only now, when all the rules of nature are suspended to accommodate quack science, can all the losers finally sink their loser teeth into all the great inventors and imaginers who built the car engine, fed the world, saved millions of lives and made the world better for just about everyone alive.

Now, it's important not to belittle the value of vultures. There is good reason federal law protects the scavengers of road kill. They are willing to dine on the carrion the rest of us would rather not touch.

Likewise, Soros bets on the collapse of currencies and makes out huge.

to be kept in your living room only to void their vile diet all over civilized people.

Soros is the Larry Flynt of finance. Yet, somehow, he manages to get invited to all the big parties, whether he's lobbying to tax into oblivion small business owners and family farmers in America or to punish industrious countries everywhere for all their mighty advancements.

Yesterday's con was all about the money -- it's always about the money -- rich countries paying poor countries to cope with all this global warming that

UN scientists have so much trouble proving actually exists.

Soros' idea is that the International Monetary Fund would "loan" huge amounts of money -- $100 billion -- to impoverished countries at highly advantageous rates.

In the unlikely event of a default, the loan would be backed by IMF gold reserves.

But no need to talk about that because, really, does anybody think Bangladesh might possibly fail to meet its obligations or do anything dishonorable,

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Starving children in Kenya due to crop displacement for plantings better suited for carbon offsets. Children photo from Time.

Hedge Fund and currency manipulator George Soros has made money by causing massive human suffering.

Twice convicted of stock fraud, on the pain of millions, he has extracted billions of dollars. His stated goal is to see the breakup of the US-he said the currect financial crisis is a culmination of his life's work. Now he rescues international America Haters, Inc. in Copenhagan, telling them they can get America's money without dimwit Americans realizing it. Use the IMF.

Look for the World Bank and IMF to displace the UN in taking in and disbursing monies in one world government (disguised as CO2 management).

This scam has come this far because United States citizens have no one representing them. No one. Job one is for someone to speak out every time the media refers to us as a "rich" country. We are bankrupt, "poor" by any definition, with no hope whatsoever for a turnaround.

He suggests instead that the world's rich countries can provide the 500 billion dollars to fund a green environment by

activating the reserves they have available in the International Monetary Fund, IMF.

The rich countries can borrow these so-called SDRs out into the world's poorest countries, and as you can, according to George Soros to use gold reserves in the IMF, which also has a

value of 100 billion U.S. dollars to pay interest on the loans from the world's rich countries to poor.

On This avoids burdening the national budget in the world's rich countries at a time when you are hit by the crisis, said Soros, who stresses that the IMF countries have already decided that gold reserves will be used for the benefit of the world's poorest.

Soros also said that he believes that China will be a net contributor to and receives from this global arrangement to fund climate projects in poor countries.

Soros has personally decided to invest a billion dollars - or almost 5 billion dollars in clean energy technologies."